Week 30; Film 82 - Spartacus [1960]

All I really knew about “Spartacus” going into it was its iconic and oft-parodied “I am Spartacus” denouement. For this reason, I think I expected the flick to be campy, bloated, or overdramatic, like some of the other ancient-civilization films I’ve seen (I’m looking at you “Cleopatra”). But instead, I encountered a witty, complex, and well told story with believable characters and exciting moments. I know it’s probably sexier to chose one of his more iconic films but (other than Dr. Strangelove), this might be my favorite Stanley Kubrick film.

The movie picks up when Spartacus, a Thracian slave, is spared from execution and selected to be a gladiator. When forced to fight, the enslaved gladiators find a moment to escape and begin pillaging Roman villas. Spartacus is chosen to lead the group and they begin liberating slaves, seizing wealth, and searching for a path out of Italy. This whole time however, political infighting in Rome has allowed Marcus Crassus to seize the army and he attacks Spartacus’s group. Most of the former slaves are killed and the survivors, refusing to turn over Spartacus, are crucified. It’s a real pick-me-up film.

For being nearly 60 years old, this film had a ‘modern’ feel to it, like an episode of “Game of Thrones” (pre-season 8 #petty). While other epics have matched this one’s scale, “Spartacus” was shot with a depth of field (both narrative and cinematographic) that really brought the characters and expansive sets to life. I was impressed/shocked by the film’s use of violence, as well as its racy innuendo (snails v. oysters) and nudity (covered exquisitely with depth of field, of course).

But I think what impressed me most was the superior storytelling. A 3 hour, 10,000 cast member epic, shot on two continents is not easy to boil down to an interesting and coherent storyline. This film does just that while beautifully weaving in B, C, D, and E plots (likely more!) in an effective way. For example, contrasting Spartacus’s kindling love with Varinia against his training to kill, or his unifying leadership against Roman politicking, Kubrick and editor Robert Lawrence succeed at striking balances between sub-stories in a way that served the overall story. So well told, in fact, that the "I am Spartacus" scene still plays. Great flick.

Week 29; Film 81 - Field of Dreams [1989]

Maybe it was my expectations—created by overwhelmingly positive word of mouth and my enjoyment of other Costner performances—that led me to believe that “Field of Dreams” would be pure enjoyment for me. It wasn’t. I thought it was kind of dumb.

It’s actually a hard film to summarize with brevity, but I’ll try. Novice corn farmer Ray Kinsella hears a voice encouraging him to build a baseball diamond in his field. Despite the financial risk, he builds the diamond and discovers that the ghost/spirit/image of deceased player Shoeless Joe Jackson has come to play on the field with his fellow dead teammates. Following more voices, Ray embarks on a road trip with author Terence Mann as they piece together shared clues, convictions, and unexplainable connections. Back at the baseball diamond, Mann is enthralled with the ghostly game and Ray learns that all of his work wasn’t for Joe Jackson but for his estranged, dead father. The film ends with Ray playing catch with his dad’s ghost while people flock to the field to watch the ghost game (solving the financial problem).

I KNOW I didn’t sell that, but I was unconvinced by this film. I can happily accept a ghost/spirit/faith/magic movie as much as the next person, if the story is told well but I maintain that this story was not. I don’t think the filmmaking sold me on the silly choices everyone was making, from Ray risking his family’s wellbeing to build the diamond, to his skeptical wife accepting the choice after a short conversation, to author Terence Mann accepting his friendly kidnapping. I get it, the point is that each of these characters experienced and acted upon some unexplainable conviction—a leap of faith—but I don’t accept that this was portrayed well.

Then throw in the film’s lack of conflict. There are zero consequences to all of this crazy. Sure, people think Ray is weird and wrongheaded. And sure, he almost loses the farm (though he doesn’t seem too choked up about it)—but all of these problems just disappear when the film’s magic extends to the nonbelievers (like grumpy brother-in-law Mark) or (in one of the worst deus ex machina moments I’ve seen) when hundreds of people flock to the field on the same hunch that Ray had. I understand, the “conflict” was Ray’s internal strife of losing his father without making amends. But other than the opening narration, the film never plays with this and resolution of “playing catch with dad’s ghost” felt pretty cheap.

I know this film means a lot to a lot of people. I also know it’s a modern-day fairy tale and not meant to be overanalyzed. But if I ever have a hankering for a nostalgia-laced baseball movie (which I never do), I’m reaching for the clearly superior film: “The Sandlot.”

Week 28; Film 80 - Blade Runner [1982]

Growing up as a young fan of sci-fi (and enjoying Harrison Ford’s iconic roles/wanting to be Indiana Jones), I definitely knew about “Blade Runner”. Still, my parents were actually pretty strict about moving ratings and by the time I could see a Rated “R” film, I had kind of moved on. But when “Blade Runner 2049” was released in 2017, I was reminded that it was time to visit the original. I finally got around to it!

Coincidentally, my two year delay was apropos as “Blade Runner” takes place in 2019 Los Angeles (in a setting somehow far more dreary than the actual thing). The film follows Harrison Ford’s Rick Deckard, a special kind of cop/bounty hunter who tracks down and “retires” (a.k.a. kills) replicants (androids that are not permitted 'on planet'). Deckard gets dragged back into the traumatic line of work when four replicants steal a shuttle to Earth. We see Deckard investigate and eventually off each of the replicants until faced with Roy Batty, the group’s leader, in a rainy and terrifying final showdown.

This movie was jam packed with style. From the perspective of world-building, the film is nearly unmatched for its era. The cluttered, filthy, asian-hybrid ‘future’ Los Angeles was dreary and trashed like a somehow-worse version of Hill Valley 2015. The “retrofitted” art deco Los Angeles greatly suited this futuristic film noir and the production design has clearly been influential, reminiscent of later films like “The Fifth Element” and “Minority Report”. And the casting was spot on, with a chilling performance by the recently passed Rutger Hauer and Harrson Ford in would could be his most gloomy, Harrison Ford-esque role yet.

After all this wait, this film didn’t entirely land for me. I suspect it was, in part, because it was a film noir—I generally can’t stand film noir. I think the film steeps in traditional sci-fi themes around genetic engineering, the nature of humanity, and the failures/ethical quandaries of capitalism but never really goes anywhere with this framework. The job is hard, Deckard is good at it, what he does troubles him, and everything sucks. It’s a typical “there are no winners in a future with androids” story that has been told more interestingly elsewhere. I’m sure I’ll get around to “2049” eventually—but for now, I’d rather watch Terminator 2.

Week 27; Film 79 - Glory [1989]

“Glory” is a film about the 54th Massachusetts Infantry Regiment, one of the first African American units to be formed and fight in the American Civil War. The story picks up when Robert Gould Shaw, a white, Union Captain, is injured at Antietam, sent home, and takes command of the newly formed 54th. He struggles to balance discipline and trust-building until he properly outfits the troops and they deploy for battle. After insulting and demotivating months of manual labor, the unit finally gets a taste of battle. Proving that African Americans fight valiantly, they are deployed to lead the charge at Fort Wagner. I’m half mindful of spoilers and half cavalier about spoiling “history”—but I suppose I’ll stop my recap there!

The story is inspirational and beautifully depicted. It features a terrific cast, including Mathew Broderick, Denzel Washington, Cary Elwes, Morgan Freeman, and Andre Braugher, who mostly delivered stellar performances. The real breakout reveal for me was James Horner’s fantastic score, which grew with the self-realization of the regiment and came into full-force before the Fort Wagner battle. The whole thing is “The Land Before Time” meets “1812 Overture” and I loved it!

It’s pretty rare that I watch a 2 hour film and feel it could have ran longer. We could have further explored Shaw’s cowardice or the motivation of the men serving. I also felt like the film was too loose-and-fast with when it chose to adhere to historical record and when it chose to dramatize, with most of the main characters being manufactured around the very real Colonel Shaw. And finally, the storytelling is a bit inhibited by the battle sequences which didn’t technically live up to the drama.

Still, the film outshines these flaws to share a story about courage, honor, and leadership. America has always had a complicated relationship with the status and rights of those who fight for this country (just last week, it was announced that Trump wanted to end deportation-protection for family members of active military). The story of the 54th is as essential to our national heritage as the American Revolution or D-Day. I remain ever thankful to the men who fought for the individual rights of Americans.